THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
CC No. 20/2010
Wednesday, the 29th day of December, 2010.
Petitioner : Joy Joseph,
Plakkuzhiyil House,
Amalagiri P.O
Kottayam.
(By Adv. S. Ajithkumar)
Opposite parties : 1) The Proprietor,
Pullathil Jijo Travels,
1st Floor, Adam Tower,
Kottayam.
2) The Secretary,
State of Kerala
Thiruvananthapuram
(By Adv. R. Vikraman Nair
Dist. Govt. Pleader)
3) The Commissioner of Transport
State of Kerala,
Thiruvananthapuram.
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Case of the petitioner filed on 28..1..2010 is as follows:
Opposite party is the proprietor of the business concern named “Pullathil Jijo Travels”. Opposite party is engaged in the business of providing means of transport particularly private buses and cars for the consumers. Petitioner as a consumer of the opposite party hired two luxury buses and lancer cars on 3..5..2009 in connection with marriage of the petitioners daughter. Buses were booked on 22..4..2009 at the office of the opposite party. According to the terms a sum of Rs. 14,000/- was fixed as rent for one bus and Rs. 4,000/- as rent for the car. The agreement between the parties was to ply the bus from Kottayam to Vazhakkulam church. According to the terms 50% of the total amount has to be paid as advance on the date of booking and the petitioner paid accordingly a sum of Rs. 16,000/- on 22..4..2009. On 3..5..2009 after
-2-
completion of half of the journey the drivers of the opposite party demanded an amount of Rs. 18,300/- as balance consideration. They have compelled the petitioner for immediate payment, though the petitioner requested for payment of balance amount at the office of the opposite party at Kottayam. Due to the compulsion and considering the special situation petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 18,300/- to one of the driver. However they refused to give any receipt for the payment. According to the petitioner payment was made without verifying the account. On perusal of the bill petitioner realized that opposite party collected an excess amount of Rs. 2,300/- from the petitioner. On realization of the mistake petitioner contacted at the office of the opposite party and demanded for the refund of the excess amount collected. Opposite party confirm the excess payment and not repaid the sum collected. According to the petitioner act of the first opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Petitioner arrayed the state of Kerala and the commissioner of transport in the party array in this petition. Petitioner seeks direction to the second and 3rd opposite party to stop the unfair trade practice. Petitioner further stated that actually fare for 70 K.M journey in like buses and car will come only Rs. 11,700/- But opposite party charged a sum of Rs. 32,000/- . So, he claims refund of the excess amount of Rs. 20,300/-. So, the petitioner prays for a direction to first opposite party to refund excess amount collected and also for cost and compensation.
First opposite party was set ex-parte second and 3rd opposite party filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. Complaint is defective for mis- jointer of necessary parties. According to the second and 3rd opposite party state transport department has not fixed any common rates for contract carriage service. At present state transport department has no mechanism for repayment of excess
-3-
money forcibly accepted by the employees of the 1st opposite party. Since there is no violation of condition of permit second and 3rd opposite party have no role in this complaint. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
ii) Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of sworn proof affidavit filed by the petitioner and Ext. A1 to A3 documents on the side of the petitioner.
Point No. 1
Crux of the case of the petitioner is that first opposite party collected an excess amount of Rs. 2,300/- than the agreed amount. Further more petitioner alleges that the first opposite party collected an excess amount of Rs. 20,300/- in excess than the normal fare for 70 K.M journey. Second and 3rd opposite party filed version contenting that state transport department has not fixed any rate of fare for contract carriage service and concerned matters. Since the first opposite party was set ex-parte. We are constrained to rely on the sworn proof affidavit filed by the petitioner. In our view the act of the first opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Since state transport department has not fixed any rate of fare for contract carriage service. We find that private carriage operators are now following unfair trade practices exploiting the consumers and it is highly necessary to impose restrictions on this tyronical way of providing service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
-4-
Point No. 2
In view of finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed. In the result (a) First opposite party is ordered to refund the petitioner an amount of Rs. 22,600/- with 9% interest from the date filing of the petition till realization. Since interest is allowed no compensation is ordered. First opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the petitioner. (b) First opposite party is ordered under section 14(f) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 to discontinue the unfair trade practice and not repeat the same.(c) The 2nd and 3rd opposite party is directed to take appropriate steps for fixing rates of contract carriage services and to take appropriate measures to check the exploitation of consumers by imposing reasonable restrictions preventing exploitation carried out by the private contract operators in futures.
Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of the copy of this order.
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this 29th day of December, 2010.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents for the Petitioner
Ext. A1: Copy of the agreement Dtd: 22..4..2009
Ext. A2: Copy of agreement Dtd: 22..4..2010
Ext. A3: Copy of lawyers notice Dtd: 21..7..2009.
Documents for the Opposite party
Nil.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
Despatched on / Received on
amp/ 6 cs.
